In-flight Wi-Fi

The continued unpopularity of in-flight Wi-Fi

GOGO, which provides in-flight Wi-Fi to many American airlines, recently filed for an initial public offering. But as Dan Frommer, a tech writer, reminds us (via Slate's Matt Yglesias), in-flight Wi-Fi is still quite unpopular: just 4% of passengers on flights that offer Gogo Wi-Fi actually pay for the service. (Gulliver wrote about air travellers' unwillingness to pay for Wi-Fi service way back in 2009.)

Mr Frommer believes that the 4% statistic is a sign that a very small base of Wi-Fi users (probably business travellers and bloggers like Mr Yglesias and your correspondent) provide the majority of Gogo's revenue. But Mr Yglesias argues that the low purchase rate "casts the sometimes questionable quality of the service in a stark light" and compares Gogo to the truly abysmal Amtrak Wi-Fi, which I've criticised in this space before. (Perhaps part of the problem is that many employers will not reimburse for in-flight Wi-Fi.)

Ultimately, Gogo's business model could be threatened by the fact that using cell phones and wireless modems on an aeroplane probably won't cause you to plummet out of the sky. (It can, however, interfere with ground-based networks and unshielded aeroplane instrumentation.) A more enlightened airport security regime and technological progress might eventually allow passengers to use their own wireless modems while airborne. If that happens at some point in the future, Gogo would be in big trouble. In my experience, the service isn't good enough to realistically compete with the speeds offered by a 3G wireless modem.

The bigger problem for Gogo and other in-flight Wi-Fi providers is that most people aren't willing to pay for what is usually a slow, unreliable internet connection unless they absolutely must. There's plenty of work that even a blogger can do without an internet connection, and a plane is often the best place to do that sort of work. And if more people did start using the in-flight service, that would make it even slower. But perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about Gogo's prospects. Mr Frommer has a lot more points to consider; his piece is definitely worth the click-through.

The point is not that it is unpopular, but that no-one apart from frequent business travelers wants to pay for it. When Gogo offered the service for free (sponsored by Google) over Christmas 2010 they had 3 million users in 6 weeks (more than the number of paid for sessions in the whole of 2011).
The service works well enough, so long as you are not trying to do something that requires more than a few hundred kbps. So Hulu etc is hopeless (but not explicitly blocked). However, if you need to get work done, send emails, etc. then its a good option.

To willstewart, the Gogo service is not using satellite links like competitor systems from Row44 (on Southwest) and Panasonic (on Lufthansa). It uses an air-to-ground link (90+ celltowers on the ground pointing up into the sky) with dedicated frequencies that Gogo bought in an FCC auction.

To Tordenskjold, the usage is highly correlated with flight length - coast to coast flights often get 10%+ take rates, less than 2 hour flights get very little usage. It is even more correlated with business travel (SFO-BOS gets >2 times the usage of SFO-ORL).

My poor explanation - the reduced capacity on Ku referred to the lack of bandwidth available on satellites now as slots and spectrum get used up. Ka offers a relief valve, freeing up more spectrum as Ku fills.

A given amount of bandwidt on Ka will serve the same customer requirement as a similar amount on Ku, but should be cheaper (since there shouldn't be a scarcity in the market - for now!). And clearly economics are a big problem for service providers so far.

And I don't actually see that they will be able to make it much cheaper going Ku or Ka rather than terrestrial - if they can't make it affordable via a terrestrial feed they'll have problems with satellite (which may also explain why nothing has happened since you noticed announcements).

About 25 years ago my father retired from a senior job with an international company that kept him on the road most of the time. He commented that he was glad to be retiring since he could see telephones on aircraft in the future and he dreaded the idea because an aircraft was the only place where he could "get any peace" and get away from "the bloody telephone".
Before the age of mobile telephones a friend who was a keen sailor and spent most weekends and holidays and many summer's evenings on his boat used to tell everyone that he had no radio. In fact, he did for marine and safety reasons but he didn't tell anyone. He had the same argument. He sailed for relaxation and he did not wish to be harrassed.
What is wrong with people and companies, insisting upon instant, ubiquitous and permanent communication with no breaks?
People need to relax. They need down-time. In my opinion, but not mine alone (it has been demosntrated by psychological studies), permanent availablity is a serious cause of stress and mental problems.
And usually it is unecessary. If a person is on call it is a different matter, eg a doctor, police officer, aircrew on standby, etc, but in most cases tomorrow is more than sufficient. Many times one will be asked for something, rush to get it to the boss and then see him toss it on his desk and head off for the weekend. Most things aren't that urgent.
One of the worst cases of unreasonable management demands was of an engineer on a project. He received a call after Saturday midnight, telling him to come to site because of a problem. He said, "I can't. I'm drunk. I'll be there in the morning."
Management was not pleased but, as he said, it was his off time. He wasn't on standby. It would be illegal for him to drive and against company policy for him to be on site. And there is no law or rule against having a few drinks in your own home outside of working hours. This was just a totlally unreasonable demand but symptomatic of the insane attitude towards 24 h availablitly.
And many of the people I see on aircraft, in lounges, etc with their computers open are playing games, watching movies etc, not working. I always regard those who "work on the plane" as poseurs or liars, until proven otherwise. I have worked on a plane but, as a rule, I don't. Even on a business trip one is usually travelling and working more than normal hours. So, flight time is "my time" and I'll use it to chill out. And I have no trouble in getting the job done, and done well.
This constant availablity will cause serious social problems, neurosis and, even, psychosis.
Get a sense of proportion! When people are off they are off, one hundred percent.

This is true. Oops, been a while since I read that Gogo/Aircell was/were testing Ku-band antennas not using them just yet. My bad. Btw., because Ku has less capacity than Ka, it will be a slower application in an airline setting -- 50 people using the system at the same time will have that effect (comparatively).

As mentioned by others, Gogo uses ground-based towers, not satellite. (See their website for some graphics). Ku is not necessarily "considerably slower than Ka". There is however less capacity on Ku than Ka so there "may" be more contention, with consequent less throughput. Further, the risk of Ka (or Ku, or C or L) suffering rain fade at 10,000 metres is minimal - I've always seen cloud tops below me from a plane (admittedly I close my eyes and leave finger-marks imprinted in the seat arms when there is storms on teh route).

Perhaps a little out of context, but I would be surprised to see evidence that cellphone use actually interferes with anything important on an aircraft. An active cellphone can be detected with a $500 handheld scanner. If they were really an issue, airlines would have such a detector on each plane, with a big red light, and the pilot would say "we're not pushing back from the gate till the light goes off".

They DO, however, mess up the cell phone network, which is not built to deal with the doppler shift of cell phones traveling at mach 0.85 (about 200km/h is the limit).

1. Gogo uses direct ground-to-plane connections, not satellites. Gogo has essentially created their own cellular network covering the USA, but with the tower antennas pointed up instead of sideways, and spaced appropriately for planes moving very fast at 30,000 feet. That's why it doesn't work outside of the US, and why you'll get a different experience than on Lufthansa (which I assume does use satellites.)

2. Gogo had to build their own network that way precisely because using regular cellular networks would not work. You will never be able to legally use your phone (or personal hotspot) on a plane unless the plane is equipped with its own small "tower". (A promising technology, but not without some of the same limitations as Gogo.)

You can't directly use the ground networks from a plane because cellular networks are designed with the assumption that a user will never be in range of more than a handful of towers at once, due to terrain. Wherever you are on the ground, twenty miles away, those same frequencies are re-used. It doesn't interfere because of the distance and terrain. When a user is in the air, that all falls apart. In the air, you might have line-of-sight to dozens of towers spread over a great distance, many of which are using the same frequencies. One or two users can get away with that, but if everyone did it, the interference would bring cellular networks to their knees for users in the air AND on the ground. That's why the major ban on phones on planes in the US comes from the FCC, not the FAA.

It would be great to have steady Wi-Fi on board. But since that is not the case and the rates are kind of prohibitive, people will continue to use the time for other activities without connection. On my recent flight to Las Vegas to Pubcon conference I have managed to accomplish a blog post (http://www.visacenter.ca/blog/2011/travel/travel-smart-with-smart-gadget...), that was difficult to do while at the office and being connected due to constant disruptions. So, until the quality is balanced with the price, this on-board wi-fi service will not be of high demand.

One key impediment to on-flight wi-fi is a general lack of power outlets in planes (and the short battery life of laptops and mobile gadgets). On long-haul flights in particular, more customers are likely willing to pay for wi-fi access. However, if the battery runs low, why pay for several hours of internet access? This suggests that wi-fi pricing plans need adjustments and planes need to be retrofitted.

Agree with Guy Hamilton. Why not use those few hours to think about big issues in your life or work? It's precious time when you cannot be disturbed. It is too easy to evade tackling a problem by dealing with trivial bits of work. Undisturbed thinking time is scarce and valuable. Very senior managers don't get much of it. What do the great management thinkers say about being busy fools?

@MikeW20
"There's a world outside the US. Isn't it about time the *British* magazine The Economist started to realise that?"
Absolutely spot on!
I travel extensively but rarely to the USA. I have never lived in the USA. I am interestd in it, of course, as it is a major influence upon most aspects of life on this planet. But I am only interested in its influence, not in the details of daily life and only marginally at best in its local travel problems.
It's about time either the "Gulliver" writer were replaced with one based elsewhere or, at least, another, equal-time writer based outside the USA were appointed.
This comment applies not only to Gulliver but, in greater or lesser measure, to the rest of the newspaper as well.
I don't mean that US coverage should be replaced with UK. I don't live there either. It should be truly international.

I've "used" Gogo's service on three occasions. I place used in inverted commas because after paying for the service I was unable to connect to it. I've had several such encounters with wi-fi providers in airports and hotels and found they have never worked correctly (particularly Boingo).

Ironically I have also availed of many free wi-fi services, mostly in Europe, and they always seem to work easily, smoothly and quickly enough. One wonders how companies who offer a free service as a perk manage to do so much better at it than companies that profess to specialise in it...

I completely agree. Have you even seen their pricing options? let's say I have a 8 hour flight. I got on the plane, settled down and fell asleep, the plane took off, I woke up from my sleep, god knows where I am in time and space, I see seatbelts signs are off, then I took out my laptop, and see that I actually have the option to pay for internet... and then comes the pricing option... but then hmmm.. should i use the 1 hour option or the other options. what if the meal cart comes? what if it works slower than usual and I can't finish my work within the hour? oh wait when do we have to strap down and turn off everything again? but I definitely don't need the 24 hour options. do i really need internet.. argh, I guess I can just wait till I get to the airport.. time to catch more sleep

Americans airlines seem to be unable to offer a qulaity service like we have enjoyed for the past year here in theNordic region. When I fly around Scaninavia in new Boeings operated by a privately owned airline called Norwegian I have free access to fast WiFi when we are in the air. This is the second largest airline in Scandivaia and growing fast. They offer the low priced tickets, comfortable roomy seats and the free WiFi. I can even use Skype with the video on to call my friendsand family. The Economist should do some research before writing such silly articles - many pasengers are using it and are very pleased with this service.I am a very happy customer and use themevery week.

For paid-by-employer people and those who cooks lunch with Bill Gates on Sundays, I don't know why you are here reading this. For the rest of us, first of all, even if it were 1 dollar an hour that's 720 per month, I did about 30 speed tests on a united flight to get 0.13 mbps. My comcast gets 36mpbs. Of course, I understand that if there were an astronaut on the moon now, it'd cost him about 50 billion dollars to get an order of chow-mein from dragon palace as opposed to 5.50. But this ISN"T because not enough astronauts are ordering it so the price wouldn't come down, it's the tech that sucks. Remember those gigantic cellphones? Was it because there was a critical moment somewhere in the late 90's when everyone's finally buying them so the cause of mobile phones go down so did the service charge and avalanched into a better and better cellular service? NO! Some proper tech came in, that's about it.

Gogo customers are real guinea pigs, I was one. If you have to use it, pray, bring a more recent laptop with Windows 7 (a must) and software Connectify installed on it so that you can use the same wifi adapter to both receive and broadcast the wifi and split the charge with your fellow passengers.

Having used Gogo recently on a flight to Detroit I can only confirm the slow speed and occasional drop of the connection. I can't fathom why this should be. Lufthansa's Flynet wifi-services (installed on some A330 and A340 aircraft flying transatlantic routes) is much faster, while it costs roughly the same.
Inflight-wifi also makes more sense to me on long-haul flights because you can actually get some work done and a 10-12h downtime might be too much for some email-obsessed managers. For a two hour flight I would imagine that most people can survive without internet and rather sync their laptops/smartphones/etc. at the airport pre- and post-flight.